Mosquitos Have Little Trouble Flying in the Rain

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mosquitos Have Little Trouble Flying in the Rain

Posted by Unknown on Monday June 4, 2012 @04:04PM from the all-the-better-to-give-you-malaria dept.

sciencehabit writes with an interesting article about the (surprisingly not well studied) effects of rain on flying insects. From the article: "When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus. And yet the bug will survive and keep flying. That's the conclusion of a team of engineers and biologists, which used a combination of real-time video and sophisticated math to demonstrate that the light insect's rugged construction allows the mosquito to shrug off the onslaught of even the largest raindrop. The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots." Bats, unfortunately, aren't so lucky: "...these furry fliers need about twice as much energy to power through the rain compared with dry conditions."

186 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

A mouse could fall off a building and walk away. People, not so much. The smaller you are, the more resistant you are to long falls. It's why many dwarves become steelworkers.
1. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Drishmung · 2012-06-04 16:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes
  On Being the Right Size J. B. S. Haldane in 1928
  
  --
  Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
2. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:35 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  A mouse could fall off a building and walk away. People, not so much. The smaller you are, the more resistant you are to long falls. It's why many dwarves become steelworkers.
  I always thought that was because of their +2 racial bonus to Craft (metalwork) checks.
3. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-04 16:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Force = dP / dt P = mass * velocity A mouse weights around ~20g , a horse around ~450kg. If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor, the horse will experience a force that is ~22000 times higher. Easily explains the splashing... ( I could go more and calculate an approximation of the value force itself, but I think this is enough )
4. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by linatux · 2012-06-04 16:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Dropping a bus on a horse, a human or mouse at the bottom of a thousand-yard mine shaft will still wreck the bus. Wouldn't be good for the creatures either (probably kill the mosquito too).
5. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · 2012-06-04 17:02 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor
  
  AIUI, you assume wrong. The horse's terminal velocity is considerably higer (and considerably more terminal) than that of the mouse. It's one of the many consequences of the cube/square law: proportionally, the mouse has more surface area than the horse, giving it more air resistance, so it ends up with a softer landing.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
6. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-04 17:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  AIUI, you assume wrong.
  
  I am aware of that, but I didn't want to complicate things, in case the reader was not a physicist. Sometimes simple assumptions can still give you a clear indication of what is going on.
7. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by rst123 · 2012-06-04 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  AIUI, you assume wrong. The horse's terminal velocity is considerably higer (and considerably more terminal) than that of the mouse.
  
  and thus you strengthen his point. The mouse wins with conservative estimates. The mouse wins by more when you take into account more detailed explanations.
  Maybe he should have said "even if you assume..."
8. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Sulphur · 2012-06-04 17:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  AIUI, you assume wrong. The horse's terminal velocity is considerably higer (and considerably more terminal) than that of the mouse.
  and thus you strengthen his point. The mouse wins with conservative estimates. The mouse wins by more when you take into account more detailed explanations.
  Maybe he should have said "even if you assume..."
  This is called the principle of conservation of mice.
9. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · 2012-06-04 17:22 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I am aware of that, but I didn't want to complicate things, in case the reader was not a physicist.
  
  I'm not a physicist; I don't even play one on TV. And yet, I spotted your error. I wouldn't have commented if you had, as an example, assumed a spherical horse (and mouse) of uniform density because that would just have emiminated some messy complications. Instead, you made an asumption that you knew was wrong and that led you directly to a wrong explanation.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
10. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by taj · 2012-06-04 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes
  On Being the Right Size J. B. S. Haldane in 1928
  Sextus Empiricus could have told us that 1750 years sooner if he had a mouse, a rat, a spare horse and a thousand-yard mine shaft.
11. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by dgatwood · 2012-06-04 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor, the horse will experience a force that is ~22000 times higher.
  The total force, yes, but unless I'm thinking about the problem wrong, that force is spread out across a surface area that is somewhere on the order of 3 square inches versus about 12.5-15 square feet (by my very crude estimates), so operating under your assumptions, any given part of the horse's anatomy would experience a force that is only about 30-36 times the force that the mouse experiences, give or take, and maybe even less if you assume that the horse's body itself has greater ability to compress and absorb the impact than the mouse's (because of its thickness). It's still a significant difference, of course.
  And as others have mentioned, the horse's higher mass-to-surface-area ratio causes a higher terminal velocity, which means that it might be quite a bit more than a 30x difference, but I'm not about to try to calculate that.... I have a feeling that it would be difficult to calculate the actual PSI of such an event without a horse, a mouse, some appropriate measurement hardware, and a very deep cave.... :-)
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
12. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-04 17:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Give me a break, I wanted to write that comment that was as short, as quick, and as simple as possible. My conclusion isn't wrong ( in the literal sense ), I just made a "very" conservative estimation ( we do that in physics ). The whole point was to show, that the difference between a mouse and horse isn't small, but rather gigantic. I was not going into assumptions of density and its uniformity, or whether we can assume animals as spherical or not, or of buoyancy and drag factors. Now I agree with http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2894703&cid=40216663 , I should have mentioned that I was doing a very conservative estimation and the number is actually much higher.
13. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-04 18:02 · Score: 2
  
  If you know the Horse's density and assume he is spherical ( I don't know why this assumption makes me laugh ) you can estimate his terminal velocity, same for the mouse. Now I might be wrong on this one but I would think that roughly both have the same density. If you do a simple calculation this would give you about ~3.5 factor more in favor of the horse ( the horse's terminal velocity following these assumptions would be 3.5 times higher than the one for the mouse). Now the relative surface of two animals is around 800 (again assuming same density and both as spherical)? So if I assume I didn't mess up doing all of this on the go, the relative Force/Area would be around 96 times higher for the horse.
14. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by AK+Marc · 2012-06-04 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  But you are the one that's wrong. They are roughly the same shape and density, so they should have roughly the same terminal velocity, and certainly not sufficiently different to make a difference for the example. and you asserted his wrongness of conclusion because of an oversimplification of a premise, but didn't give any other reasons that would lead to the conclusion that he's wrong.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
15. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by aliquis · 2012-06-04 18:18 · Score: 2
  
  I know a guy who as a child "saved" his guinea pig from an incoming dog by throwing it out the balcony.
  It didn't survived.
16. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by aliquis · 2012-06-04 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, physicists and their vacuum mining shafts! ;D
17. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by aliquis · 2012-06-04 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  the mouse has more surface area than the horse, giving it more air resistance, so it ends up with a softer landing.
  It's also fluffy! And adorable!
18. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by FrootLoops · 2012-06-04 18:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, your two main assumptions are badly wrong.
  (1) The terminal velocities of larger objects is larger, and the effect is significant. The mouse hits the ground at a much lower speed than the horse.
  (2) The mouse and horse are not even remotely point particles so you should be considering pressure instead of force. You'd have to divide your 22000 number by the ratio of whatever bits land on the horse at once to the same for the mouse; this would be a fairly large number.
  To illustrate very approximately why larger objects have larger terminal velocities, consider two falling spheres of equal density, one of small radius and one of large radius. An object reaches terminal velocity when the energy it gains from gravity is perfectly canceled by the energy it has to give up to move air molecules out of the way. Let's compute each.
  Basic physics gives the first line of the following. Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
  (energy gained from gravity)
  = (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
  = (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
  = (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
  The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
  (energy lost to moving air out of the way)
  = (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
  = (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
  = (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
  = (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
  At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
  (constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
  (constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
  (terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
  The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
19. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · 2012-06-04 18:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I take it, then, that you don't understand the cube/square law. If you did, you'd understand why a mouse offers more wind resistance and has a lower terminal velocity than a horse. It's not really about physics, it has to do with the way the ratio of volume to area changes as an object scales up.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
20. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2012-06-04 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  You owe me a new keyboard.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
21. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  That was entirely way too much.
  How about we just fire the horse and mouse from air cannons like the Mythbusters and just say they're going the same speed.
22. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by vegiVamp · 2012-06-04 19:02 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, so *that's* where all that vacuum comes from - they mine it!
  
  --
  What a depressingly stupid machine.
23. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Ragzouken · 2012-06-04 19:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But your mouse remains safe, as predicted.
24. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Very similar to the first thing that came to my mind, except I thought in terms of the physics and engineering of (successful) flight.
  When you change the scale of something, the forces involved and material strength scale in vastly different proportions. This is why most birds don't fly using the same mechanisms as most insects(*) and airplanes can't fly using the same mechanisms as birds. It's also why large airplanes are a vastly more complicated engineering problem than small ones; you're need to work close to the structural strength limitations of the materials to keep the weight at a level to get it off the ground at all.
  (*) While both methods involve "flappable" wings, the aerodynamics are vastly different. Smaller animals are incapable of gliding and have to flap constantly and rapidly, larger animals mostly glide and the occasionally flapping motions can be very slow.
25. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Strider- · 2012-06-04 19:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What about a spherical horse in a vacuum?
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
26. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:24 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Give you a break? No. You're totally wrong.
  Firstly, the critical equation is the kinetic energy of the object, because that is the energy which is dissipated to bring it to a stop. Kinetic energy is 1/2 m * v^2. Velocity squared.
  So the terminal velocity is as significant if not more than the mass of the object at the point of impact.
  If the mouse hit the ground at the same speed as the horse, it would probably die too.
  Terminal velocity of a mouse is about 13m/s. A horse about 110m/s.
  Kinetic energy of mouse at terminal velocity is ~150 joules. At the terminal velocity of a horse, it would have an energy of 12,100 joules, 85x more energy. A mouse traveling at 110m/s (400km/h) could kill a person!
  A horse traveling at mouse-terminal-velocity would still be splattered, though.
27. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  You seem like a know-nothing charlatan. Do I know you from high school?
28. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by quarkscat · 2012-06-04 19:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Aside: This is only tangentially relevant to TFA, but I hope it gets a pass from the moderators and not modded down as OffTopic:
  Preface: Bats are kind of like mice with flappable wings. One would expect that they would have that knack of flying, pretty much instinctively. One would not expect them to thwart Darwin's Law, survival of the fittest, by doing 'stupid' things while flying, but ...
  True Story: I was driving home from work one night and was only a block away from home in a residential neighborhood, when something fell out of the sky and loudly hit the hood of my car. I stopped, engine still running and headlights on, to get out and see what had happened. A bat, with it's wings wrapped around something or other, had fallen out of the sky. As I was contemplating retrieving the combo windshield squeegee / ice scraper from the trunk to brush this poor dead creature off my hood, it separated from what it fell from the sky with and flew away. Almost immediately, a second bat roused itself and flew from the hood in presumed pursuit of the first bat. The only thing that I could figure is that those 2 bats were copulating in mid-air, lost control, and plummeted down to earth and landed on my car's hood.
  I'm not a biologist, nor have I ever played one on TV, but it would seem that the act of 2 small mammals copulating in mid-air would violate the base instinct of survival that falling out of the sky might negate. Unless ... unless they routinely know that such a fall is non-lethal, and other base instincts kick into play. Kids. You let them out to run around without supervision in the evening after a big supper (of bugs), and the next thing you know, they're getting into trouble. And yes, there was a full moon that night.
  Question: (Directed to anyone who might actually know): Was I fortunate to see a common occurrence, something that very few people have an opportunity to see, or were those bats engaged in very risky behavior that they managed to survive?
  Inquiring minds want to know, and Bing has so few good answers.
29. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by RivenAleem · 2012-06-04 20:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Okay, there's only one way to settle this once and for all. BRB
30. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Rainbowdash · 2012-06-04 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get all this physics formulas it's waaay to early - but at 13m/s a horse would still say splat ye?
31. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 20:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I wish this was reddit so I could upvote all of zero.kalvin's posts. He deserves a lot more credit in this thread than techno-vampire's minor-nitpick sniping, and I think that would play out in a democratic voting scheme, but here on slashdot the best we can hope for is that the ones with mod points are smart enough to read the entire thread and make sure zero.kalvin gets more karma than techno-vampire.
32. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by jamesh · 2012-06-04 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Were there any overhead power lines nearby? I've seen pairs of birds fall onto the road then get up again a short time later (or a single bird... although normally they don't get up again) after they touch wings when on different wires.
  The fact that your bats were wrapped around each other probably means it wasn't an electric shock though... and maybe they were too small to spread across a pair of power line?
33. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by NFN_NLN · 2012-06-04 21:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Force = dP / dt
  P = mass * velocity
  A mouse weights around ~20g , a horse around ~450kg. If we assume that both of them have the same velocity when touching the floor, the horse will experience a force that is ~22000 times higher. Easily explains the splashing... ( I could go more and calculate an approximation of the value force itself, but I think this is enough )
  Yes. But the real question is: What would happen to a bag filled with 22,500 mice (weighing a total of 450kg)?
  Would the mouse-bag make a splash like the horse? Or would each individual mouse walk away with a slight shock?
34. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by quarkscat · 2012-06-04 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  There were power lines at the edge of the road in the easement, but I don't believe that the power lines were a factor.
  The coupled bats fell straight down onto the hood of my car. It may have been my imagination, but I could have sworn that I saw them just before they hit the car, seen as a dark blob, which then bounced slightly and remained motionless until they 'revived' as I previously narrated. My headlights were on, I was driving slowly (~20 mph), and there was a full moon & clear night sky.
  Of course, bats use echo-location when flying during their normal nocturnal existence, which is quite good enough for them to feed copiously on insects, but AFAIK they still have eyesight & vision. No telling what they thought of the large bipedal just feet away from their landing spot, except perhaps "Danger".
35. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Zorpheus · 2012-06-04 21:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah but if you assume that they touch the floor at the same speed, the amount of energy to be absorbed per body weight is the same for mouse and horse. The force per body weight is even lower for the horse since it has longer legs and therefore more time to slow down. But also the ratio of the cross section of the legs to the body weight is worse, which makhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/05/0112252/mosquitos-have-little-trouble-flying-in-the-rain#es it worse for the horse again.
36. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by zero.kalvin · 2012-06-04 21:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's way more complicated. You are talking about an n-body ( n= 22500 ) dynamics, if I am not mistaken this can be best handled by fluid dynamics. But even that is based on a lot of assumptions, for example will the bag hold ? if yes then it will behave like the horse. If not, then it depends on how fast will it tear, and how will it tear! Try this, take a melon and throw it out of a 10 story building, then another melon in ten plastic bags, and another in 100 plastic bags, and throw them. The result will show you what I mean.
37. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 21:50 · Score: 0
  
  Seeming is believing
38. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by NFN_NLN · 2012-06-04 21:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The simplified answer was actually the next two sentences in the essay:
  'You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes. For the resistance presented to movement by the air is proportional to the surface of the moving object. Divide an animal’s length, breadth, and height each by ten; its weight is reduced to a thousandth, but its surface only to a hundredth. So the resistance to falling in the case of the small animal is relatively ten times greater than the driving force."
  You are debating a single sentence of an essay that is an amazing read to say the least. I highly recommend reading it: http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html
39. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by reboot246 · 2012-06-04 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  When asked about it, the horse replied, "No sir, I didn't like it."
40. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by BagOCrap · 2012-06-04 22:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The whole point was to show, that the difference between a mouse and horse isn't small, but rather gigantic.
  Thank you, sir! This would never have occurred to me if you hadn't brought it up. Now I better understand why my parents would never give me a horse as a child; it wouldn't fit in the cage with the mice, and it would splash if I accidentally dropped it.
  
  --
  -- Chaos, panic, pandemonium... My job here is done!
41. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by mysidia · 2012-06-04 23:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A mouse could fall off a building and walk away. People, not so much. The smaller you are, the more resistant you are to long falls.
  Close.... the lower your mass to surface volume density; the more resistance you are to long falls.
  
  The most resistant objects to long falls are very large organisms that have very little mass, and therefore a higher ratio of surface volume to mass.
  The larger the object's horizontal cross-section w.r.t the ground, the greater the air resistance, the lower the velocity while falling.
  The lower the velocity towards the ground while falling, the lower the change of momentum at the point of impact.
  The lower the mass of the object, the lower the change of momentum at the point of impact with the ground.
  The lower the change of momentum at the point of impact with the ground, the lower the upward force that is exerted upon the object in the collission.
  The difference in damage between the two objects then depends on what the two different objects were constructed from. Different materials have different strengths; a titanium skeleton will probably fair better than something made out of fired clay.
42. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  Oh lord, where are my +Funny mod points when I need them.
  Nice one sir.
43. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Cap'nPedro · 2012-06-04 23:32 · Score: 2
  
  I had a quick look through some journals and this is the closest thing I could find:
  Mating Behavior as a Possible Cause of Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines, Paul M. Cryan, The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Apr., 2008), pp. 845-849, Allen Press
  Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097617
  
  Bats are killed by wind turbines in North America and Europe in large numbers, yet a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon remains elusive. Most bat fatalities at turbines thus far occur during late summer and autumn and involve species that roost in trees. In this commentary I draw on existing literature to illustrate how previous behavioral observations of the affected species might help explain these fatalities. I hypothesize that tree bats collide with turbines while engaging in mating behaviors that center on the tallest trees in a landscape, and that such behaviors stem from 2 different mating systems (resource defense polygyny and lekking). Bats use vision to move across landscapes and might react to the visual stimulus of turbines as they do to tall trees. This scenario has serious conservation and management implications. If mating bats are drawn to turbines, wind energy facilities may act as population sinks and risk may be hard to assess before turbines are built. Researchers could observe bat behavior and experimentally manipulate trees, turbines, or other tall structures to test the hypothesis that tree bats mate at the tallest trees. If this hypothesis is supported, management actions aimed at decreasing the attractiveness of turbines to tree bats may help alleviate the problem.
  The Mating System of Tadarida brasiliensis (Chiroptera: Molossidae) in a Large Highway Bridge Colony, Annika T. H. Keeley and Brian W. Keeley, Journal of Mammalogy , Vol. 85, No. 1 (Feb., 2004), pp. 113-119, American Society of Mammalogists
  Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1383984
  
  Focal animal sampling at a highway bridge revealed an aggressive and a passive male copulation strategy that may function as adaptations to different roost conditions. During aggressive copulation, the male separates a female from a roost cluster and restricts her movements during mating while he emits characteristic calls. During passive copulation, the male moves very slowly onto a female that roosts in a dense cluster. Passive copulations occur without resistance from the female and without male vocalizations. Both males and females mate with multiple partners, suggesting that mating is promiscuous.
  I'm an electronic engineering student, not a biologist, so someone else may find better information!
44. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by ArsenneLupin · 2012-06-04 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  by doing 'stupid' things while flying, but ...
  Humans due stupid stuff while flying too, it's called "the mile high club"... or do you really believe that only passengers join "the club"?
45. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  Holy Fuck people, why is this even being argued?
  Assume there is no air resistance and no terminal velocity
  A mouse of mass X traveling at speed Y delivers a certain amount of energy upon impact.
  A horse has a lot more mass than the mouse, thus more energy is delivered up on impact when traveling at the same velocity.
  Force = Mass x Velocity. Given the same velocity, the object of greater mass imparts more energy upon collision. This is physics 101.
  If the energy imparted is enough to break the tissues, the critter goes splat. If it's not enough, it goes boing. Thus, when the velocity is low enough that the horse's energy won't break the tissue structures, they will both bounce. As we increase velocity and thus energy, there comes a point where the mouse will still bounce but the horse will splash. Increase it enough, they both will splash.
  Terminal velocity, surface area, etc. only matter in terms of calculating the amount of energy when the collision occurs.
  The force needed to destroy the tissues does not scale with the size of the organism, it's a fixed constant. Thus, the raindrop hitting the mosquito may have the same relative force as the bus hitting the person, but the determining factor in the Splatter is the absolute amount of force, not the relative amount.
46. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by sco08y · 2012-06-04 23:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Give me a break, I wanted to write that comment that was as short, as quick, and as simple as possible.
  You didn't even take relativistic affects into account. What if the horse and mouse are being dropped near a large mountain? And what about the possibility of quantum tunneling?
  You're just lazy and sloppy, that's all.
47. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-05 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  "In the time of war, the value of sin(x) may reach 2." -- attributed to military department.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
48. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  THX
49. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  I am aware of that, but I didn't want to complicate things, in case the reader was not a physicist.
  I'm not a physicist; I don't even play one on TV. And yet, I spotted your error. I wouldn't have commented if you had, as an example, assumed a spherical horse (and mouse) of uniform density because that would just have emiminated some messy complications. Instead, you made an asumption that you knew was wrong and that led you directly to a wrong explanation.
  Can you say asshole? I shouldn't be hard, even a two-year old can say his name.
50. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  Please, you aren't gong to tell me that that is why Denver, Colorado is so popular.
51. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Simplify the experiment.
  F=M*A
  Given two objects of equal velocity, the more massive imparts more force.
  The determining factor in the bounce vs. splash is how much energy is required to destroy the cellular bonds.
  Assume both objects are spherical with the same composition and density, and no outside forces such as gravity or air resistence, etc. This also allows us to assume the same amount of force applied to a given surface area upon impact.
  If the velocity is low enough, neither object will impact with enough force to break the structural bonds of the object.
  If the velocity is high enough, both will break.
  There is a "sweet spot" in the middle where the smaller will bounce while the larger breaks.
  This is because the force required to break the structural bonds does not increase with the volume or mass of the object... it's essentially a fixed constant.
  Now, when we're talking about dropping an actual mouse and an actual horse, things get vastly more complex. You not only have to worry about surface area, terminal velocity, impact angle, surface area of impact, but also the elasticity of each organism, and whether or not PETA gets wind of the experiment and interferes.
  So how does the mouse vs. horse debate apply to this story, or the claim about getting hit by a bus?
  "The team concluded that the raindrops deform and largely bypass the much smaller bodies of the mosquitoes."
  Oh, it doesn't fucking apply at all.
52. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by RabidReindeer · 2012-06-05 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Darwin's "Law" is not an iron mold into which species are poured - it's closer to a statistical predictor. It works on species, not on individuals, and for Chthulhu's sake it does not dictate that only the nastiest, most vicious, well-armoured creatures will succeed, political/economic pundits notwithstanding. Otherwise, we wouldn't have bunny rabbits and butterflies.
  Actually, in the case of the bat, I'd be concerned that it had rabies. Unless they'd bounced off some other part of your vehicle (or some other vehicle) first, I cannot believe that they hadn't figured out how to have sex as a flying species. The more closely mutations relate to reproduction, the more likely they are to propagate.
53. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by ceoyoyo · 2012-06-05 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  His explanation was correct, just not complete. Dynamics becomes quite a bit more complicated when you include air resistance. In this case, unnecessarily complicated. He made a simplification that illustrates the point, gets the right answer, and greatly simplifies the problem. A simplification just like your spherical horse. So stop being pedantic.
54. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Hillgiant · 2012-06-05 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily true. We are talking about a value well under Avogadro's number. Even if we had enough mice, the inter-particle interactions would be highly non-newtonian. For 22500 mice, I would still model them as solid particles (it can be done, and is not quite as hard as you might think). The effects on individual mice would be quite interesting, in my estimation. Individuals on the leading surface of the bag would be expected to bear the brunt of the impact, while his/her compatriots at the rear would experience a certain level of damping and a correspondingly lower impact velocity.
  The question of the melons is slightly different. For low numbers of bags, I would expect little effect with respect to the melon (it may not splatter far, but it would still be heavily traumatized). Once a threshold of bags is reached, the mass of the bags will become considerable and the bag-melon interactions cannot be neglected.
  And I haven't even had my second cup of coffee, you bastard.
  
  --
  -
55. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  So assuming the shaft was a vacuum or the horse was wearing a parachute to slow its velocity to the same as the mouse...
56. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by beanpoppa · 2012-06-05 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  He would explode before he hit the bottom.
57. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, those bats dropped right out of the sky onto my car hood, and flew away as I described. They didn't stick around long enough for me to be concerned about rabies, but that is why I was thinking about getting my windshield scraper out of the trunk. At first I thought they were dead, not just stunned.
  I don't think that bats would normally copulate while flying. That behavior might be more appropriate for when they are roosting. That old cartoon that used to appear on T-shirts, with 2 geese copulating while flying and the logo "Fly United", was AFAIK not based upon any scientific fact.
58. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by guises · 2012-06-05 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Bats don't mate in mid-air. They either fell from something overhead or, more likely, they were fighting.
59. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by TubeSteak · 2012-06-05 01:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A man, a horse, and a mouse walk into a bar...
  "Barkeep," the man says "I need 3 pints of beer and access to your roof."
  "Here you are," the barkeep says as he gives him the beer and keys to to roof.
  Then he looks at the horse and asks "Why the long face?"
  The horse pondered for a moment and then replied
  "Well, basic physics gives the first line of the following.
  Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
  (energy gained from gravity)
  = (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
  = (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
  = (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
  The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
  (energy lost to moving air out of the way)
  = (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
  = (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
  = (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
  = (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
  At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
  (constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
  (constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
  (terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
  The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
  In summary, this asshole is going to shove me off a roof just to prove a point, physics says they'll both survive, but I'm fucked."
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
60. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Talderas · 2012-06-05 01:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Excellent, so I can toss mice off the top of my building all day long and not have to worry about killing them.
  Suck it PETA. Throwing these mice is intrinsic to testing the catacopter.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
61. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-05 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think this deserves to be an honorary (Score:6, Funny)
62. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  F = ma; holding that the distance to the bottom of the mine shaft is the same, the only thing that varies in this equation is the mass of the object falling. The horse generates the most newtons, which are used to spread said horse into a paste on the floor of the mine shaft
63. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  No. Your formulas are wrong because neither the horse nor the mouse stop instantly. That's where your "dt" term comes from. And, a horse can take a lot longer than the mouse to stop, because a horse is physically larger than a mouse. If all the elastic stuff in a horse deflects 10cm, it might be fine. If all the elastic stuff in a mouse deflects 10cm, it will be vaporized.
  So, although it's true that force = dp / dt, you have a lot more work to do to find dt.
  I'll let you do the math, but you might be able to calculate the force when an object hits the ground by assuming a spherical horse falling in a vacuum, and some "mammal impact elasticity constant" of x% of the radius of the object, representing the distance that the object takes to come to a complete stop.
64. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  techno-vampire, you coward. You got (rightly) flagged a troll and so you continue as an AC.
  
  Lame.
65. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-06-05 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  While I know this isn't what you were answering, but it turns out that lung damage is a major factor in bat deaths near turbines.
  http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982208007513
66. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not techno-vampire, you nincompoop. Great way to completely ignore the argument with that ad-hominem attack though.
  Good try, zero.kalvin, you know-nothing charlatan. You got rightfully called out on your bullcrap and so you continue as an AC.
  Typical internet-moron.
67. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Raenex · 2012-06-05 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Reddit moderation is feel-good, idiotitc group think. Not that Slashdot moderation doesn't have its problems, but it wouldn't be better served by following the reddit model.
68. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  or whether we can assume animals as spherical or not, or of buoyancy and drag factors.
  I'm confused - are you referring to African or European mouses?
69. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  or mice?
70. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by bitt3n · 2012-06-05 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes
  On Being the Right Size J. B. S. Haldane in 1928
  to be fair, the world has changed since 1928. These days, a man splashes.
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
71. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Atzanteol · 2012-06-05 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  I take it, then, that you don't understand the cube/square law. If you did, you'd understand why a mouse offers more wind resistance and has a lower terminal velocity than a horse. It's not really about physics, it has to do with the way the ratio of volume to area changes as an object scales up.
  Ah, so in other words, it's about physics.
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
72. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  But wait, did objects in space all fall with the same velocity, regardless of size, mass and matter ? Me thinks the horse could survive that...
73. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Bats fighting, and not copulating. That could also make sense. I didn't have enough time to check the gender of the bats, so that is a good alternative explanation.
  THX
74. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · 2012-06-05 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, he made a simplification that illistrated the wrong point. Yes, the horse does have a higher Ke whien it hits, but that's not because of its higher mass it's because of its higher velocity. And, it's not hard to explain, either. Read my original post to see how easy it is.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
75. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · 2012-06-05 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so in other words, it's about physics.
  
  You can call it that if it makes you happy, but it's really a matter of geometry, which is, of course, math.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
76. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by ceoyoyo · 2012-06-05 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  The horse has a higher kinetic energy when it hits because of BOTH it's higher mass AND it's higher velocity.
  Your (current) post is the one that's misleading. And as someone else pointed out, you're both grossly oversimplifying the problem because the relevant metric is the pressure the tissue experiences when it hits. Nevertheless, either of your explanations are sufficient to demonstrate the principle. The one that doesn't consider different terminal velocities is simpler, and possibly a better starting point for someone who doesn't know much physics.
77. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by techno-vampire · 2012-06-05 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  The horse has a higher kinetic energy when it hits because of BOTH it's higher mass AND it's higher velocity.
  
  Well, yes, but the impact speed adds vastly more than the mass because the formula is half the mass times the square of the velocity.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
78. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the mouse will have the possibility of dying, but more importantly it might break its bones and little tiny feet. However, your idea is fantastic but might I make it even better? Mice Cannons. You put mice in the cannot and launch them at PETA? Once you're done you can go into space and drop a mouse from 160,000 feet and watch it survive... err, i mean incinerate. Wait, that was too evil of me.
79. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by BadPirate · 2012-06-05 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it worked out anyway, looking at this thread with a filter of 3+, all I see are zero.kalvin's posts and your post wishing you could upvote him more.
  
  --
  - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
80. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by yurtinus · 2012-06-05 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Except Dysons - those are captured from the solar wind.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
81. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Llamalarity · 2012-06-05 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  One more possibility is a mother and her young. Many species of bats carry their young while feeding, and can fly with a surprisingly large one if they are relocating to a new roost.
82. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2012-06-05 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  But your mouse remains safe, as predicted.
  Yes, indeed.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
83. Re:Impact energy not the same for small objects by sco08y · 2012-06-06 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Gah... 'effects', not 'affects'.
Figures. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:14 · Score: 5, Funny

You have to work your ass off to keep the things you like alive/going (plants, cars, house, etc), yet pests like mosquitoes, bankers, and politicians you just can't get rid of no matter how hard you try.
1. Re:Figures. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot one of the most resilient pests... lawyers.
2. Re:Figures. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  Use scorpion spray. It is good enough to kill mosquitoes and spiders, but it is perfectly formulated to scare off lawyers.
3. Re:Figures. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  Mosquitoes and bankers, I cannot offer a solution. But for politicians, lemme introduce to you a French friend of old.
4. Re:Figures. by Wizard+Drongo · 2012-06-05 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  No he didn't.
  Lawyers clearly are not alive, since they possess no soul. They are the undead.
  
  --
  The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
5. Re:Figures. by schroedingers_hat · 2012-06-05 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's dual purpose..and bankers have so much power these days you can just about consider them politicians.
  Mosquitoes I got no good solution for, but they're not as bad as the other two, so maybe you'll be able to tolerate it after that.
6. Re:Figures. by plopez · 2012-06-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just eat lots of garlic. They'll just buzz off..... the mosquitoes that is. The other two pests can work at a distance.....
  I've tried it, it works better than DEET. It doesn't come off when you sweat. In fact the sweat carriers the garlic aroma making it more effective.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
This is new? by JimCanuck · 2012-06-04 16:14 · Score: 1

I thought anyone who has ever been fishing already knew that?

Fishing in light to medium rain still ends up getting you rather bitten at dusk and dawn during mosquito season.
1. Re:This is new? by clintp · 2012-06-05 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. Rain doesn't stop the little buggers at all. To add further insult, it washes off the insect repellent too.
  
  --
  Get off my lawn.
/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Futurepower(R) · 2012-06-04 16:15 · Score: 1

"When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus."

You know that's not true. A bus is solid, a raindrop is liquid.
1. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by JimCanuck · 2012-06-04 16:18 · Score: 2
  
  Surface tension is a rather interesting study of fluids.
2. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  my bus is a cat
3. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by flaming+error · 2012-06-04 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but a mosquito is solid and a human, in this scenario, is liquid.
4. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  You know that's not true. A bus is solid, a raindrop is liquid.
  ORLY? water dropped on a car
  (WARNING: mute before you click the link, unless you're into lame techno)
5. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by shadowofwind · 2012-06-04 16:25 · Score: 2
  
  Physics doesn't scale by size either. Strength is related in different ways to length and to cross section, which is length (or breadth) squared. Mass is proportional to length (or breadth) cubed. That's not even remotely the same. Dropping a bug a meter is not like dropping an elephant a hundred meters.
6. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-06-04 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Is your neighbor a Totoro?
7. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by maugle · 2012-06-04 16:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But the bus analogy is still wrong, because the entire point of the article is that the mosquito is not smashed by the raindrop. Instead the mosquito simply merges into and falls with the drop, then escapes before the raindrop hits the ground.
  
  So, it's more like phasing through the front of an oncoming bus, landing comfortably in one of the seats, then escaping out the rear before the bus plows into a concrete wall.
8. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by rgbrenner · 2012-06-04 16:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  *sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?
9. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by kdemetter · 2012-06-04 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  True, the analogy is wrong.
  They should calculate how much water that would be , and what the effect would be on human beings.
  One thing to take into account is the position of the body and area of impact : I have a feeling that if you put the amount of water on someone head while standing up, it would be harder to withstand than if you were crouched down , and the water is put on your back.
  
  --
  Slipping shoelaces ?
10. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Xhris · 2012-06-04 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  More than just this. A bus is approx 160x the mass of a person. A rain drop is approx 30x the mass of a mosquito. (source google!)
  Obviously depends on the size of the bus and person.....
11. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by DeBaas · 2012-06-04 17:56 · Score: 2
  
  Just substitute bus by Ford F150 or Hummer, that's all
  
  --
  ---
12. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by vegiVamp · 2012-06-04 19:08 · Score: 2
  
  Well, the mosquito would probably survive (the impact, not the drowning) when the drop it is in hits the ground, too. I often hit when I swat at flies (which are bigger and heavier than mosquitos), and they simply butt into the wall (with, relatively, quite some force), shake their head, curse at me and simply continue buzzing about.
  These little things are built like tanks, I tell you.
  
  --
  What a depressingly stupid machine.
13. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:16 · Score: 0
  
  Since you're nitpicking already.. Your analogy is also wrong, the drops bounce off. So, knowing the results of the research already, the correct analogy involving a bus would be:
  "When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus shaped gym ball."
14. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by rvw · 2012-06-04 19:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But the bus analogy is still wrong, because the entire point of the article is that the mosquito is not smashed by the raindrop. Instead the mosquito simply merges into and falls with the drop, then escapes before the raindrop hits the ground.
  So, it's more like phasing through the front of an oncoming bus, landing comfortably in one of the seats, then escaping out the rear before the bus plows into a concrete wall.
  *sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?
  It's like a raindrop that hits a Yugo. The raindrop merges into the Yugo. The Yugo stops because the electricity fails. You get out, a little wet because of the leaking roof, but still OK.
15. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by DrXym · 2012-06-04 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on what they hit I guess. I'd have thought they'd be pretty screwed if they landed in a puddle, or pretty much anywhere which did not fling them free of the water at the point of impact.
16. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  The "ORLY?" applies to the statement "You know that's not true", but you'd have to read the GGP post to know that "that" refers to: "When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus."
17. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 21:10 · Score: 0
  
  A short bus hits a knight in full plate mail at 30 km/hr (roughly terminal velocity of the rain drop). The short bus has a very large rubber bumper and the knight is Andre the Giant. Both the bus and Andre are wearing rocketpacks and are hovering about 50 m above ground (directly above a WWE match of Hulk Hogan vs. The Undertaker). Andre is angry that the bus is blocking his path. The bus is ambivalent. Who wins the match?
18. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen the matrix?
19. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Nidi62 · 2012-06-04 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  Would you have preferred that they used a tanker truck instead of a bus?
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
20. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  yes
21. Re:/. editors: Too many games, not enough reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Dropping a bug a meter is not like dropping an elephant a meter, either. I would think that a fall from a meter could pose significant injury risk to an animal the size of an adult elephant.
Why don't they? by wisnoskij · 2012-06-04 16:15 · Score: 1

Well that leads to the obvious question then, why don't they? They seem to disappear quite quickly when it starts raining.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:Why don't they? by siddesu · 2012-06-04 16:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Not where I live. When it rains, it only makes them more vicious. And the hotter/wetter it gets, the worse they are. It is unbelievable, they fly in packs of five, four lift the blanket by the edges, one sucks. Then they change.
2. Re:Why don't they? by vegiVamp · 2012-06-04 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  Because when it's raining, they're off to the puddles to make sweet, sweet love and deposit thousands upon thousands of eggs, I suspect.
  Also, I may well be able to survive a good batting with a foam LART, but that doesn't mean I like it.
  
  --
  What a depressingly stupid machine.
I for one... by Drishmung · 2012-06-04 16:19 · Score: 1

From the article:

The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

--
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
1. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots.
  *sigh*
  Another in the (long, long long, LONG) list of of reasons why the world has totally gone to shit.
  http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/05/0112252/mosquitos-have-little-trouble-flying-in-the-rain#
2. Re:I for one... by GameboyRMH · 2012-06-05 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Finally we may beat the mosquitoes by fighting them with tiny anti-mosquito UCAVs.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Wooden Wonder by rossdee · 2012-06-04 16:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, Mosquitos could fly in the rain. However they would have trouble dropping their bombs accurately and obviously the recon version wouldn't get good photos.
The night fighter version would fare better with its radar, if there were any German bombers up there to intercept.
But of course sometimes they had to fly in bad weather, such as just before D-Day.
1. Re:The Wooden Wonder by Bujang+Lapok · 2012-06-04 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Camels were quite good at flying in the rain too, and it was much better at dog fighting.
2. Re:The Wooden Wonder by NotQuiteReal · 2012-06-04 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  That can't be right. This is what the government says about Camels!
  
  --
  This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
3. Re:The Wooden Wonder by N!k0N · 2012-06-04 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  ah, if I only had mod points...
4. Re:The Wooden Wonder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  Stop bringing Camels to a dog fight!
5. Re:The Wooden Wonder by plopez · 2012-06-05 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  You are quite the Fokker....
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Ants... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:24 · Score: 0

can carry a hundred times their body weight and I can carry thousands of ants.
1. Re:Ants... by kdemetter · 2012-06-04 16:52 · Score: 2
  
  can carry a hundred times their body weight and I can carry thousands of ants.
  
  I wouldn't recommend it. They have a mean bite.
  
  --
  Slipping shoelaces ?
2. Re:Ants... by GameboyRMH · 2012-06-05 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  I see some Troll Science potential here...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Mosquito's secret weapon by Grayhand · 2012-06-04 16:32 · Score: 2

It's all the Scotchguard they spray themselves with.
1. Re:Mosquito's secret weapon by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-06-04 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  Just after reading the headline i half expected that they were going to say the erratic way they fly provided a bonus against ever hitting a raindrop.
  Oh well, sustaining the impact is cool, too.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I have already studied this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 16:43 · Score: 0

Last week there was a mosquito flying around in my bathroom. I grabbed a spray bottle, twisted it to the "jet" setting, and blasted the mosquito several times. The first 5 or 6 times the mosquito got hit, it kept flying around. Finally I got it to fall on the bathtub floor, and I wasn't convinced it was dead, so I smashed it.
1. Re:I have already studied this by Cyko_01 · 2012-06-05 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  sounds like a very scientific study
Here's the video for it ... by knopf · 2012-06-04 17:20 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/05/28/1205446109.DCSupplemental/SM01.mp4

Cheers.
Matter of chance by dutchwhizzman · 2012-06-04 17:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

If mosquitos weren't able to deal with rain, there wouldn't be a lot of mosquito's. They need water to reproduce in so they live in predominantly wet areas. Evolution made the rain resistant mosquito's breed and the non resistant ones extinct. Horses don't often fall down steep cliffs, nor do humans, so there isn't a lot of reason for them to develop a resistance against that. Mice reach their terminal velocity rather quick, so if they survive a 2m drop, they are much more likely to survive a 200m drop, since the difference in velocity isn't that much.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:Matter of chance by qu33ksilver · 2012-06-04 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you bring evolution to this, a lot of this can be contradicted.
  
  They need water to reproduce in so they live in predominantly wet areas. Evolution made the rain resistant mosquito's breed and the non resistant ones extinct.
  
  First question- Why would they need water to reproduce in the first place? Why didn't evolution happen to occur in some other way. Even if by someway, we accept that they need water for reproduction, they don't need to be resistant to rain for this. Water and rain are entirely two different things. Even we need water to live, but that doesn't mean we are resistant to floods. Even the word "resistant" is ambiguous. So what I am trying to say is that the falling raindrop doesn't affect the flight of a mosquito, simple as that. Why ? because of their body structure. Now why their body structure is like that is a question that somebody else have to answer.
2. Re:Matter of chance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing me - I thought the velocity was not terminal for mice?
3. Re:Matter of chance by phantomfive · 2012-06-04 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Now why their body structure is like that is a question that somebody else have to answer.
  Because if it weren't like that, the mosquito wouldn't be able to live where it does.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Matter of chance by jouassou · 2012-06-04 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  With terminal velocity, he is not referring to the velocity that would kill the mouse, but the largest velocity the mouse can acquire during free-fall. In other words, the term refers to the velocity where air drag and gravitational pull are equal in magnitude, leading to no net acceleration according to Newtons 2nd law.
5. Re:Matter of chance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  woooosh.
  that's the sound of a joke going over your head at terminal velocity.
6. Re:Matter of chance by a_hanso · 2012-06-04 19:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Stiiiinging in the raiiiin, I'm Stiiiinnning in the raiiiin...
7. Re:Matter of chance by RivenAleem · 2012-06-04 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Explain the Pegasus then.
8. Re:Matter of chance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  Now why their body structure is like that is a question that somebody else have to answer.
  Perhaps that body structure evolved to allow some of them to survive long enough to reproduce. You know, rain is a pretty common natural phenomenon in the habitat of the Anopheles mosquito. Which is rather practical, considering rain provides mosquitoes with a good source of the still, non-salty water (as opposed to running water) that their larvae need to grow.
  It's still plain evolution. What would you do if you'd be forced to have a walk in the rain before you could have sex? Exactly. So you'd better find a way to go for that walk in the rain AND SURVIVE IT.
9. Re:Matter of chance by HeadlessNotAHorseman · 2012-06-06 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, the entomomorphic principle...
  
  --
  I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
10. Re:Matter of chance by phantomfive · 2012-06-06 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  I believe it's the entopomorphic principle.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Has someone notified ... by XrayJunkie · 2012-06-04 19:05 · Score: 1

... Batman about this problem?
Tiny Flying Robots? by guttentag · 2012-06-04 19:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots.
Great! Because I was just thinking to myself, "we really need more tiny flying robots. If I have to wait 20 years for the CIA to solve the raindrop problem and weaponize these things, I'll die of boredom before videos of them assassinating people with them show up on YouTube."

Too heavy on the sarcasm? Fortunately I don't say stuff like this out loud.
1. Re:Tiny Flying Robots? by jamesh · 2012-06-04 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  The findings offer little aid in controlling the pest but could help engineers improve the design of tiny flying robots.
  Great! Because I was just thinking to myself, "we really need more tiny flying robots. If I have to wait 20 years for the CIA to solve the raindrop problem and weaponize these things, I'll die of boredom before videos of them assassinating people with them show up on YouTube."
  Too heavy on the sarcasm? Fortunately I don't say stuff like this out loud.
  FWIW (not much), it would probably be easy to weaponise actual mosquito's than to try and reproduce them as robots. Make a few billion sterile females, load them up with some form or malaria or plague that can't possibly be transmitted by regular mosquito's, and drop them on the enemy. What could possibly go wrong?[1]
  [1] For the humour impaired, that's a rhetorical question. I'm well aware of what could go wrong
2. Re:Tiny Flying Robots? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus Christ man, what's in your brain? You really need to think about seeing a hate and fear management specialist. You have a problem.
3. Re:Tiny Flying Robots? by cgfsd · 2012-06-05 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to weaponize the tiny robots, just train them to fly up the enemy's nose just like real mosquitoes. Distract your enemy, then attack with the big drones.
Water Spritzer by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-04 20:06 · Score: 1

So I guess my water spritzer isn't a good bug fighting weapon after all. Back to the wash cloth I guess :(
1. Re:Water Spritzer by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-06-04 21:04 · Score: 2
  
  Add a bit of soap to the water. That tends to work a lot better in my experience, the insects get wet instead of having the water slide off.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
2. Re:Water Spritzer by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-05 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, break the surface tension, just might work!
Effect of Rain on Mosquito Behaviour by hyades1 · 2012-06-04 21:08 · Score: 4, Funny

In Winnipeg, it isn't that mosquitoes can't fly in the rain, they just don't like it very much. Usually, your basic Winnipeg mosquitoes just jack a car and drive to their next victim. If the driver's lucky, the mosquitoes will let him go instead of keeping him for an en route snack. If there's a dog or cat in the car...don't ask. It won't be seen again.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
1. Re:Effect of Rain on Mosquito Behaviour by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  This is the first time I've seen Winnipeg mentioned in a Slashdot post... hello fellow Winnipegger. So far, the mosquitoes haven't been quite as bad this year, so at the moment they're only going after bikes and Vespas.
  The woodticks however...
2. Re:Effect of Rain on Mosquito Behaviour by hyades1 · 2012-06-05 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not from Winnipeg, as a matter of fact. But I've visited, at exactly the wrong time of year for anyone sensitive to mosquito bites.
  I live near Hamilton...Winnipeg has the same kind of feel to it (and I don't mean that in a bad way).
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
speed of an ant by Max_W · 2012-06-04 21:11 · Score: 1

If a human could cover the same number of the lengths of his body as an ant per the same amount of time, he would run at the speed about 1500 km/h (about 1000 miles/h).

There are a lot of such phenomena in the wild life world. It is one more reason to protect biodiversity, so that these species do not disappear and could be studied by engineers in the future.
1. Re:speed of an ant by tofarr · 2012-06-04 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Mosquito's are one species I for one could do without.
2. Re:speed of an ant by Max_W · 2012-06-05 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, Albert Einstein wrote that the humanity will disappear in 4 days after the last bee disappears. One never knows.
  
  Mosquito in itself is not dangerous, but parasites which it carries and distributes are (mostly from 00h00 till 04h00). Perhaps, good screens on windows and an UV-electric mosquito cleaner indoors will do?
3. Re:speed of an ant by ceoyoyo · 2012-06-05 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  If a man were the size of an ant, he'd be able to run the same speed. The "feats" of insects aren't due to incredible adaptations, they're due to you extrapolating using the wrong function.
4. Re:speed of an ant by Max_W · 2012-06-05 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  There is a lizard which can hold the upright position no matter how it dropped on the floor. More than that it can hold it in the wind tunnel with artificial turbulence.
  
  I listened to a radio show on this topic at http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/ . It is being studied already, but engineers cannot get it how it works so far. They say this threatened lizard should be definitely preserved for studying by smarter engineers in the future.
  
  Still my claim hold, it was: If a man could cover the same number of the lengths of his body as an ant per the same amount of time, he would run at the speed about 1500 km/h (about 1000 miles/h).
  
  Actually, it was not my research too.
5. Re:speed of an ant by ceoyoyo · 2012-06-05 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  There ARE incredible adaptations out there, it's just that the "if a $YOUR_CHOICE_OF_SMALL_INSECT were the size of a man it could $AMAZING_FEAT_HERE" stuff isn't. It's simply a meaningless linear extrapolation when the proper function is quadratic or cubic (or higher).
  Yes, if a man could cover the same number of lengths of his body as an ant in the same amount of time, he might be running 1500 km/h. So? If the Empire State building could cover the same number of lengths of it's height as I can when running, it would be running at 8000 km/h.
6. Re:speed of an ant by Max_W · 2012-06-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I see your point.
  
  Another interesting observation about insects is that the intelligence of their movement is imbedded, hardwired, into the mechanical structure of their body. They think very little by brain when they move with large number of legs.
  
  And ants communicate with smells. They emit molecules which transmit meaning for them. Sometimes they even connect antennas, as if creating one organism from several ones, to discuss faster.
7. Re:speed of an ant by mcgrew · 2012-06-05 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  An honest question:
  Mosquito's [sic} are one species I for one could do without.
  
  Why do you do that?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 22:48 · Score: 0

...the rain flies in the mosquitoes? ...mosquitoes don't fly in the rain? ...mosquitoes hit buses?
I don't think there are mosquitoes in Russia. ...I don't think there is a Soviet Russia.
Terrible analogy by LordNimon · 2012-06-04 23:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

When a raindrop hits a mosquito, it's the equivalent of one of us being slammed into by a bus. And yet the bug will survive and keep flying.
In other words, it's definitely not the equivalent being slammed by a bus.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
1. Re:Terrible analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, it's definitely not the equivalent being slammed by a bus.
  Yeah. Scaled analogies are always stupid. Some properties scale linear, some squared or cubed. There are even a few properties that scale at higher rates. There's a reason ants and elephants look so much different. And barging how many times it's own weight an ant can lift means nothing to an elephant, because if you scaled an ant up to the size of an elephant, not only couldn't it stand up, but it's skeleton would crush under it's own weight and you'd have a huge mess to clean up. If you scaled a mosquito up to your size, it would die before the bus could hit it.
Seen the video by Hentes · 2012-06-05 00:43 · Score: 1

Still can't believe the mosquito survived without its wing being ripped off.
Oh come on... by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-05 01:04 · Score: 1

You mean the summary couldn't give us even a tiny hint about how the mosquito can fly through rain?
If I wanted to go read articles, I'd be reading articles right now instead of being on /. with a mouthful of bagel.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Oh come on... by cffrost · 2012-06-05 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I feel your pain, brother. This post seems to be the most comprehensive, quoting a good bus analogy by someone claiming to have RTFA. ;o)
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Old news. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-06-05 01:25 · Score: 2

Mosquitos can easily fly in rain, and also in fog and snowy conditions too. In fact the Mosquito was faster than all the German fighter planes chasing it. So they completely dispensed with all the defensive machine guns, improving its bomb payload. Darned good for something made of plywood and glue. Later they painted it black and used it as night bomber.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
4GB max?? is that true or max from factory by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-05 01:36 · Score: 0

4GB max?? is that true or max from factory??
see how there are 4gb / 8gb SO-DIMM s so this system only has 1 ram slot?? but even with 1 ram slot you should max out at 8gb then.
the i3/i5/i7 are 64 bit don't tell me they are planing to put windows 32bit on this.
1. Re:4GB max?? is that true or max from factory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus fucking Christ. Do you even pay attention to the story you're on before replying? Moron.
The Hellstrom Chronicle by drunken_boxer777 · 2012-06-05 01:57 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if this is buried in a comment elsewhere, but I wanted to forego modding to point out an Oscar-winning "documentary" that (sort of) examines this question:
The Hellstrom Chronicle
This scene is filmed in slow motion demonstrating what happens when water drops hit insects.
Sadly, this title is not available on DVD or Blu-Ray.
I routinely get smashed by giant bodies of water by Normal_Deviate · 2012-06-05 02:12 · Score: 3, Funny

When I jump off a 10-ft diving board, a lake-sized glob of water smashes me at 20mph. Amazingly, I survive.
Next. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:46 · Score: 0

It just proves, once again, that E = 0.5(mv2).
If something to 10x taller and 10x wider with the same density then it is 100x heavier so at the same speed will have 10000x more energy.
Tests involving speed and mass don't scale, unless you figure out how to scale the strength of your materials to accommodate for the exponential relationship between energy and mass.
this ruins my carwash.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:59 · Score: 0

Well this kind of ruins the fun I had spraying annoying insects with water when washing my car..
She blinded me with SCIENCE! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 05:04 · Score: 0

Well, they live in VERY WET and likely RAINY areas. Just do the math on Evolution and it basically says that mosquitos would have 'figured' this out, either by breeding in such numbers that decimating rain storms didn't phase the flying hypodermics, or by some other mechanism that allowed them to "shrug it off"